Biomechanical and Neuromuscular Demands of Change of Direction: Implications for Athlete Physical Preparation 

Change of Direction (COD) actions are complex, multiplanar skills that frequently define decisive moments in competitive sport. Whether facilitating a match-winning evasion or occurring during an injury-inciting event, these manoeuvres are central to athletic success and durability. To optimise COD ability as part of a holistic, multidisciplinary approach, practitioners must develop a deep understanding of the underlying biomechanical and neuromuscular (NMS) demands. This foundational knowledge allows for the design of individualised Strength and Conditioning (S&C) programmes that precisely target athletic performance while simultaneously mitigating injury risk.

In this blog, I will provide a critical review of the biomechanical literature pertaining to a diverse range of COD actions. This exploration will include, but is not limited to, 45° to 90° side-step cuts and their variations—such as crossover and split-step cutting—alongside 180° pivoting and turning manoeuvres. Furthermore, I will examine the specific NMS demands of COD and deceleration, while discussing the angle-velocity trade-off and its critical implications for evaluating and developing COD proficiency in elite athletes.

Defining Change of Direction (COD) in Sport

In its simplest terms, a Change of Direction (COD) is defined as the reorientation and adjustment of the whole-body centre of mass (COM) towards a new intended path of travel (David et al., 2017; Wyatt et al., 2019). Within the landscape of multidirectional sports, athletes execute a diverse range of COD and agility actions to navigate the field or court (Fox et al., 2014; Rayner, 2020).

These movements include side-step cuts, crossover cuts (XOC), split steps, shuffle steps, spin manoeuvres, turns, and rapid decelerations. While the technical models for these actions were explored in our previous post, the table below (Table 1) provides a concise breakdown of their definitions and mechanical descriptions (Dos’ Santos et al., 2022).

The Strategic “Why”: COD in Competition

The application of COD actions varies significantly depending on the sporting context and the athlete’s immediate objective (Bourgeois et al., 2017; Young et al., 2015):

• Invasion Sports (Attacking): In field or court-based sports, attackers utilise CODs to evade and create separation from an opponent, generate high exit velocities for penetrative runs, or execute sharp redirections to draw out a defender (Dos’ Santos et al., 2022).
• Invasion Sports (Defensive): Defenders employ CODs to restrict space, react to the ball, or position themselves for interceptions, tackles, and covering runs.
• Batting & Striking Sports: CODs are fundamental to scoring, such as the rapid turns between wickets in cricket or rounding bases in softball and baseball.
• Racket Sports: In sports like tennis, badminton, or squash, the “return to centre” (the “T”) after a stroke is a constant cycle of COD actions required to prepare for the opponent’s next shot.

Table 1 COD actions and descriptions

High-Density COD Demands and Performance

Crucially, these COD actions do not always occur in isolation. Recent research by Morgan et al. (2025) has highlighted the concept of ‘COD density’, demonstrating that elite youth soccer players often perform multiple actions in rapid succession, with average peak densities of six CODs within a single 10-second epoch. This high action density places significant cumulative mechanical and neuromuscular load and thus, further research is necessary quantifying the peak COD demands in other sports to better inform assessment and physical preparations strategies. As such, acknowledging these “peak density” demands in crucial when physically preparing athletes with the demands of sport, particularly when rehabilitating an athlete from injury. Notably, athletes may display optimal mechanics during an isolated effort, however, during such condensed periods fatigue builds, technical execution can degrade, increasing injury risk. Therefore, optimising COD mechanics is not just about peak performance in a single effort, but about maintaining efficiency and mitigating risk throughout these high-intensity phases of play.

Biomechanical Profiles: Kinetics, Kinematics, and Performance

Each change of direction (COD) action possesses a unique kinetic and kinematic profile, offering distinct advantages and disadvantages for performance and injury risk (Dos’ Santos et al., 2022).

Lateral and Deceptive Actions

• Side-Step Cuts: These are highly effective for 1 vs. 1 evasion, particularly when acting as the instigator or when sharp lateral propulsion is required from moderate-to-high approach velocities (Dos’ Santos et al., 2022).
• Split and Shuffle Steps: More suitable for low-to-moderate entry speeds where the athlete has longer preparation time. These are ideal for feints and deceptive manoeuvres.
• The Split-Step Advantage: This action can facilitate superior lateral propulsion and subsequent acceleration—especially from a stationary start—by evoking a high stretch-load response from the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) during the initial amplitude jump (Dos’ Santos et al., 2022).

The Crossover-Cut (XOC)

Unlike side-steps or split-steps, the crossover-cut is less about deception and more about velocity maintenance during subtle redirections (Dos’ Santos et al., 2022). Common applications include:

1. Channelling and Overlapping Runs: To destabilise defensive organisations or receive a pass in space.
2. Momentum Generation: Creating high horizontal momentum to break through tackles in collision sports.
3. Decoy Runs: Forcing defenders to shift position through slight path deviations.
4. Curvilinear Sprinting: Attaining or maintaining high velocities during curved running paths.

Importantly, because COD is a multi-step process required to reorientate and deflect the COM, the crossover-cut is frequently performed immediately following the primary execution step (e.g., a side-step or shuffle) to facilitate a smooth redirection (David et al., 2018; Dos’Santos et al., 2018, 2019).

Specialised Manoeuvres: Spins and Turns

• Spin Actions: While under-investigated, spins are highly effective for manoeuvring through crowded spaces and protecting the ball. In sports like rugby, American football, or basketball, ball carriers use the spin to turn toward the “blind side,” making themselves a smaller target while shielding the ball from defenders (Dos’ Santos et al., 2022).
• Turns (>110°): Necessary when large deflections of the COM are required. These are potent evasive tools (such as v-cuts) where sharp redirections and maximum separation from a defender are the primary goals (Dos’ Santos et al., 2022).

Biomechanics and neuromuscular demands of change of direction

At its core, the primary objective of a Change of Direction (COD) is to reorientate the whole-body centre of mass (COM) towards a new intended path of travel. Unlike linear sprinting, this process typically involves a break in cyclical running and a precise manipulation of the base of support (BOS) relative to the COM. By adjusting the BOS, the athlete generates the perpendicular impulse necessary to deflect and accelerate the COM, facilitating high exit velocities, separation from opponents, or sharp redirections.

The Four Phases of COD Execution

While different COD actions (see Table 1) possess unique movement signatures, they can be globally and generally categorised into four distinct phases:

1. Initiation: A phase of constant locomotion or acceleration—whether linear, curvilinear, or lateral—leading into the manoeuvre.
2. Preparation: The preliminary deceleration phase where tangential velocity is reduced, and / or preparatory postural adjustments are made to set up the main execution step.
3. Execution (The Plant Phase): The primary COD plant step where directional change and centripetal acceleration (acceleration directed towards the centre of curvature) occur to deflect the COM horizontally.
4. Follow-through: The reacceleration phase, typically returning to linear, curvilinear, lateral motion to prepare for a subsequent sport-specific action.

The efficacy and mechanics of these four phases are not static; they are highly dependent on the athlete’s physical capacity, entry momentum, and the specific angle required by the sporting scenario. Crucially, the biomechanical demands of these actions are angle- and velocity-dependent, a concept explored in further detail in the following sections.

Figure 1 The biomechanical and neuromuscular demands of change of direction. ECC: eccentric; CON: concentric; COM: centre of mass; BOS: base of support; GRF: ground reaction force; SJM: simultaneous joint movements; PDS: proximal to distal sequencing; ISO: isometric; RS: reactive strength; GCT: ground contact time. 

Figure 1 illustrates the multifaceted demands of COD, which are defined by a complex interplay of mechanical and physiological factors.

A Multi-Step Technical Strategy

Change of direction is fundamentally a multi-step and multi-planar action. Practitioners should coach COD as a holistic sequence (multistep strategy) rather than an isolated event:

• Preparatory Steps: Following initiation, steps such as the penultimate foot contact (PFC) are critical for braking and establishing the postural adjustments required for effective weight acceptance and push-off.
• The Execution Phase: Primarily responsible for centripetal acceleration and tangential acceleration, this phase involves a break in cyclical running to manipulate the base of support (BOS) relative to the COM for perpendicular impulse generation.
• Redirective Steps: Due to the angle-velocity trade-off, full redirection is rarely achieved in a single plant step; consequently, following contacts (such as a crossover cut) are essential to complete the deflection.

The Kinetics of the Execution Phase

The execution phase is primarily responsible for propulsion, thus deflection and centripetal acceleration of the COM and tangential acceleration towards the intended direction of travel (Dos’ Santos et al., 2022; Dos’Santos, McBurnie, et al., 2019; McBurnie & Dos’ Santos, 2022). The COD plant is an eccentric-concentric coupling movement, utilising the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC). It involves rapid lower-limb triple flexion (hip, knee and ankle) to absorb and store mechanical energy (eccentric demand) before transitioning to powerful triple extension for propulsion (concentric and reactive strength demand). This is achieved through either simultaneous joint movements or proximal-to-distal sequencing with high angular velocities, depending on the athlete’s coordination strategy

Key mechanical characteristics include:

• Ground Contact Times (GCT): Typically ranging from 0.15 to 0.50 seconds, influenced by entry velocity, angle, and physical capacity.
• Force Profiles: External impact Ground Reaction Forces (GRF) can reach 2–5 × body weight, accompanied by high loading rates and significant net impulses.
• Joint Demands: Large external torques and significant power demands are required for braking and propulsion, placing high shock attenuation demands and contact forces (i.e. bone on bone) on the musculoskeletal system during weight acceptance.

Neuromuscular and Tissue Loading Implications

From an NMS perspective, COD elicits high and rapid activation of the trunk and lower-limb muscles (both knee-spanning and non-knee-spanning) to support external flexor moments and facilitate rapid movement.

While these actions provide the necessary stimulus for mechanobiological adaptation, they also represent a significant musculoskeletal loading stimulus and source of fatigue and tissue damage:

• Tissue Stress and strain: High muscle forces and muscle lengthening/shortening velocities are present during braking and propulsive phases, and they can induce ligament stress / strain and significant tendon force and impulse, including the Achilles and patellar tendons.
• Injury Risk: High-density or poorly executed COD exposures can generate mechanically induced tissue damage. Without adequate recovery or technical proficiency, this can lead to acute or chronic fatigue, or catastrophic tissue failure such as ACL ruptures, hamstring strains, and ankle sprains.

The Angle-Velocity Trade-Off: Quantifying COD Intensity

Change of Direction (COD) has been extensively researched across a wide spectrum of entry velocities (3–7 m/s) and angles (30–180°) (Donelon et al., 2020; Dos’Santos et al., 2018). In the chaotic environment of multidirectional sport, athletes execute hundreds of CODs per match, transitioning between low, medium, and high entry velocities across a diverse range of angles (Dos’ Santos et al., 2022; Morgan et al., 2021). Because of this diversity, it is critical to recognise that the biomechanical demands of a COD are both angle- and velocity-dependent (Dos’ Santos et al., 2018, 2021). For instance, an athlete who demonstrates superior mechanics and speed during a 180° turn with a high-velocity approach (such as the 505 test) will not necessarily excel during a 45° cut initiated from a short, low-velocity approach. These variables—angle and velocity—govern the intensity of the movement and have unique implications for kinematics, kinetics, and muscle activation patterns.

Kinematic and Kinetic Adaptations

As the intended COD angle increases, several mechanical shifts occur to facilitate the deflection of the centre of mass (COM):

• Ground Contact Time (GCT): GCT during the execution phase progressively increases to allow for greater net impulse (both braking and propulsion).
• Momentum Management: Horizontal momentum must be significantly reduced to negotiate sharper turns and change inertia. This is typically achieved through an increased knee flexion range of motion to facilitate greater braking.
• Technical Requirements: Sharper angles impose greater demands on the frontal and transverse planes, often resulting in distinct variations in trunk lean, hip abduction, and pelvic rotation (Havens & Sigward, 2015).

Implications for Mechanical Loading and Injury Risk

Sharper directional changes are inherently more hazardous from a mechanical loading perspective. Research indicates that 90° cuts generate significantly greater knee joint loads compared to 45° cuts (Dos’ Santos et al., 2021; Schreurs et al., 2017). Interestingly, while 180° turns and 90° cuts share similar peak knee joint loads, the strategies used to manage this load may differ:

The Bilateral Advantage: During 180° turns, athletes frequently employ a “bilateral” dual-foot contact braking strategy. This allows for the distribution of deceleration forces across both limbs, potentially alleviating the load on the final turning limb. This protective strategy is notably absent during standard side-step cutting actions, where the load and energy is primarily absorbed by a single limb.

Understanding these nuances is essential for practitioners when screening athletes and designing physical preparation programmes that reflect the specific technical requirements of their sport.

The Speed-Accuracy Conflict: Navigating the Angle-Velocity Trade-off

While approach velocity is a primary determinant of exit velocity during Change of Direction (COD) tasks (Hader et al., 2015; Dos’Santos et al., 2018), both practitioners and athletes must navigate the speed-accuracy trade-off. In a sporting context, higher approach speeds make it progressively more difficult to decelerate and sharply redirect the centre of mass (COM) (Dos’Santos et al., 2018). This is particularly pertinent during evasion or when attempting to create separation from an opponent, where the accuracy of the redirection could be more important than raw speed (Dos’ Santos et al., 2022).

The Gap Between Intention and Execution

Interestingly, biomechanical evidence suggests that the “actual” angle achieved during a COD is often shallower than the “intended” angle (Vanrenterghem et al., 2012; Dos’Santos et al., 2018). Research by Vanrenterghem et al. (2012) demonstrated that intended COM travel was not fully achieved during side-step cuts—an effect that was exacerbated as entry velocities increased. This reinforces the existence of an angle-velocity trade-off: the faster an athlete enters a turn, the harder it is to reorientate their COM.

This conflict arises from two main biomechanical constraints:

1. Momentum Conversion: Challenges in converting high forward horizontal momentum into a lateral direction.
2. Impulse Constraints: Shorter ground contact times (GCTs) associated with high-velocity entries provide less time to generate the necessary propulsive impulse for a sharp deflection (Dos’Santos et al., 2018).

The Importance of the Multi-Step COD

As the intended COD angle becomes sharper, the deceleration distances and braking requirements increase significantly (Havens & Sigward, 2014; Dos’ Santos et al., 2021). This underscores the vital role of the preparatory steps and the steps immediately following the turn:

• Approach Steps: Vital for postural adjustments and the early deceleration required to adopt favourable preparatory positions (Dos’Santos et al., 2019).
• The Plant Foot: While the main execution plant foot initiates the redirection, it is rarely the only step involved.
• Follow-up Steps: Due to the speed-accuracy trade-off, the subsequent foot contacts are essential for completing the redirection of the COM and facilitating acceleration into the new path (Rovan et al., 2014).

Ultimately, mastering the angle-velocity trade-off is about finding the “optimal” entry speed that allows for a successful redirection without sacrificing too much momentum.

The Strategy of Deceleration: The Role of the Penultimate Foot Contact

To effectively reduce momentum and reorientate towards an intended direction, athletes must distribute braking forces over a series of steps. This “braking strategy” is dictated by the athlete’s physical capacity, approach momentum, and the specific angle of the turn, and contextual demands (Andrews et al., 1977; Dos’Santos et al., 2019).

The “Braking” vs “Positional” Step

The penultimate foot contact (PFC)—the second-to-last step before the turn—is perhaps the most critical component of a successful COD:

• For Sharp Turns (e.g., 90°–180°): The PFC acts as the primary braking mechanism. By generating high posterior braking impulses, typically over greater ROM, thus work, the athlete can significantly reduce momentum before the final plant step (McBurnie et al., 2021). Maximising braking forces during the PFC is advantageous because it “unloads” the final foot contact, allowing it to focus almost entirely on propulsion and maintaining a shorter ground contact time (GCT) (Dos’Santos et al., 2019).
• For Shallow Turns: In faster, shallower cuts, the PFC serves more as a “positional” or “preparatory” step. In this context, its role is to facilitate an effective body posture for the execution phase, ensuring the athlete is optimally aligned for the subsequent push-off.

Anticipatory Adjustments

It is common for elite athletes to initiate the COD before the final foot even touches the ground. During the PFC, athletes often make anticipatory postural adjustments, such as rotating the head, trunk, and pelvis towards the new direction (Lee et al., 2017; Wheeler & Sayers, 2010). These subtle changes in foot placement and body orientation reduce the total redirection demand placed on the final contact, leading to a smoother, faster, and more efficient transition.

Figure 2. The Angle-Velocity Trade-off during COD: Utilising the Traffic Light system to regulate intensity

The COD “Traffic Light” System

The “Traffic Light” model e illustrates how the angle of deflection dictates the mechanical and neuromuscular demands placed upon an athlete.

• Green Light (0–45°): For shallow CODs, minimal braking is required, with a primary emphasis on velocity maintenance. Performance in this zone relies heavily on concentric and dynamic strength, alongside fast stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) reactive strength qualities.
• Amber Light (45–60°): As the angle increases, a moderate level of braking is required, often necessitating the use of the penultimate foot contact (PFC) to avoid excessive velocity loss across the transverse plane.
• Red Light (60–180°): For sharper turns, the athlete must “slam on the brakes.” Braking requirements increase substantially to reduce horizontal momentum, and ground contact times (GCTs) typically lengthen to facilitate the greater propulsive impulse needed to redirect the centre of mass (COM).

Strength Characteristics and Physical Preparation

The shift from shallow to sharp angles fundamentally changes the physical qualities required for success:

• Eccentric Strength: Sharper angles place a greater reliance on eccentric strength due to the increased emphasis on braking and force production while the muscle-tendon unit is lengthening (i.e., for negative work and shock attenuation etc).
• Slow SSC Qualities: Because sharper turns involve longer GCTs, they rely more on slow SSC characteristics rather than the rapid, reactive qualities seen in shallow cutting.

Practical Programming

Ultimately, velocity and COD angle are the primary regulators of intensity; mechanical loads increase significantly with faster entry speeds and sharper redirections. Practitioners should use these two factors as “dials” to progress training intensity, which is particularly crucial when coaching novices or managing athletes during injury rehabilitation.

Key Practical Takeaways

• Coach COD as a Multi-Step Strategy: Change of Direction (COD) is not an isolated event but a four-phase process involving initiation, preparation, execution, and follow-through. Practitioners should coach the “preparatory” and “redirective” steps rather than focusing solely on the plant foot.
• Prioritise Penultimate Foot Contact (PFC): For sharp turns (90°–180°), the PFC is the primary braking mechanism. Maximising braking forces here unloads the final plant foot, allowing it to focus on propulsion and maintain shorter ground contact times (GCT).
• Account for Action Density: In sports like soccer, athletes perform multiple CODs in rapid succession (up to six in 10 seconds). Training must move beyond isolated efforts to prepare athletes for the cumulative mechanical and NMS loads of these high-density epochs.
• Utilise the “Traffic Light” Progression: Use COD angle and entry velocity as “dials” to regulate intensity.
  • Green (0–45°): Focus on velocity maintenance and fast stretch-shortening cycle (SSC) qualities.
  • Amber (45–60°): Focus on moderate braking and the transition to using preparatory steps like the PFC.
  • Red (60–180°): Focus on substantial braking, eccentric strength, and slow SSC characteristics due to increased GCT.
• Manage the Speed-Accuracy Trade-off: High entry velocities make sharp redirections harder and increase knee joint loads. Athletes must be taught the “optimal” entry speed that allows for successful centre of mass (COM) deflection without sacrificing excessive momentum or compromising safety.

Conclusion

Change of Direction is a complex, multiplanar skill where intensity is primarily governed by the interaction of angle and velocity. Because these movements generate large external impact forces—often 2–5 times body weight—and significant joint torques, they serve as both a potent performance stimulus and a primary source of musculoskeletal loading.

By understanding that different COD actions require specific strength qualities—shifting from concentric reactive strength in shallow cuts to greater emphasis on eccentric strength and shock attenuation in sharp turns—practitioners can design more effective, individualised S&C programmes. Ultimately, the goal is to develop athletes who can navigate the “angle-velocity trade-off” with technical proficiency, maintaining efficiency and mitigating injury risk even during the most demanding, high-density periods of competition.

References 

Andrews, J. R., McLeod, W. D., Ward, T., & Howard, K. (1977). The cutting mechanism. The American journal of sports medicine, 5(3), 111-121. 

Bourgeois, F., McGuigan, M. R., Gill, N. D., & Gamble, G. (2017). Physical characteristics and performance in change of direction tasks: a brief review and training considerations Journal of Australian Strength and Conditioning, 25(5), 104-117. 

Daniels, K. A., Drake, E., King, E., & Strike, S. (2021). Whole-Body Change-of-Direction Task Execution Asymmetries After Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction. Journal of applied biomechanics, 1(aop), 1-6. 

David, S., Komnik, I., Peters, M., Funken, J., & Potthast, W. (2017). Identification and risk estimation of movement strategies during cutting maneuvers. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport, 20(12), 1075-1080. 

David, S., Mundt, M., Komnik, I., & Potthast, W. (2018). Understanding cutting maneuvers–The mechanical consequence of preparatory strategies and foot strike pattern. Human Movement Science, 62, 202-210. 

Donelon, T. A., Dos’Santos, T., Pitchers, G., Brown, M., & Jones, P. A. (2020). Biomechanical determinants of knee joint loads associated with increased anterior cruciate ligament loading during cutting: a systematic review and technical framework. Sports Medicine-Open, 6(1), 1-21. 

Dos’ Santos, T., McBurnie, A., Thomas, C., A., J. P., & Harper, D. J. (2022). Attacking Agility Actions: Match Play Contextual Applications With Coaching and Technique Guidelines. Strength & Conditioning Journal, Published ahead of print. 

Dos’ Santos, T., McBurnie, A., Thomas, C., Comfort, P., & Jones, P. A. (2019). Biomechanical Determinants of the Modified and Traditional 505 Change of Direction Speed Test. Journal of strength and conditioning research, Published Ahead of Print. 

Dos’ Santos, T., Thomas, C., & Jones, P. A. (2021). How Early Should You Brake During A 180° Turn? A Kinetic Comparison Of The Antepenultimate, Penultimate, And Final Foot Contacts During A 505 Change Of Direction Speed Test. Journal of sports sciences, 39(4), 395-405. 

Dos’Santos, T. (2020). Biomechanical determinants of injury risk and performance during change of direction: implications for screening and intervention University of Salford]. 

Dos’Santos, T., Thomas, C., Comfort, P., & Jones, P. A. (2022). Biomechanical Effects of a 6-Week Change of Direction Speed and Technique Modification Intervention: Implications for Change of Direction Side step Performance. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 36, 2780-2791. 

Dos’Santos, T., Thomas, C., Jones, P. A., & Comfort, P. (2017). Mechanical determinants of faster change of direction speed performance in male athletes. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 31, 696-705. 

Dos’ Santos, T., Thomas, C., & Jones, P. A. (2021). The effect of angle on change of direction biomechanics: Comparison and inter-task relationships. Journal of sports sciences, 39(12), 2618-2631. 

Dos’Santos, T., McBurnie, A., Thomas, C., Comfort, P., & Jones, P. A. (2019). Biomechanical Comparison of Cutting Techniques: A Review and Practical Applications. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 41(4), 40-54. 

Dos’Santos, T., Thomas, C., Comfort, P., & Jones, P. A. (2018). The effect of angle and velocity on change of direction biomechanics: an angle-velocity trade-off. Sports medicine, 48(10), 2235-2253. 

Dos’Santos, T., Thomas, C., Comfort, P., & Jones, P. A. (2019). The Role of the Penultimate Foot Contact During Change of Direction: Implications on Performance and Risk of Injury. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 41(1), 87-104. 

Dos’Santos, T., Thomas, C., McBurnie, A., Comfort, P., & Jones, P. A. (2021). Biomechanical determinants of performance and injury risk during cutting: a performance-injury conflict? Sports medicine, 51, 1983–1998. 

Fox, A. S., Spittle, M., Otago, L., & Saunders, N. (2014). Offensive agility techniques performed during international netball competition. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching, 9(3), 543-552. 

Graham-Smith, P., Atkinson, L., Barlow, R., & Jones, P. (2009). Braking characteristics and load distribution in 180 degree turns. Proceedings of the 5th annual UKSCA conference, 

Green, B. S., Blake, C., & Caulfield, B. M. (2011). A comparison of cutting technique performance in rugby union players. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(10), 2668-2680. 

Hader, K., Palazzi, D., & Buchheit, M. (2015). Change of Direction Speed in Soccer: How Much Braking is Enough? Kineziologija, 47(1), 67-74. 

Havens, K. L., & Sigward, S. M. (2014). Whole body mechanics differ among running and cutting maneuvers in skilled athletes. Gait & posture, 42(3), 240-245. 

Havens, K. L., & Sigward, S. M. (2015a). Cutting mechanics: relation to performance and anterior cruciate ligament injury risk. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 47(4), 818-824. 

Havens, K. L., & Sigward, S. M. (2015b). Joint and segmental mechanics differ between cutting maneuvers in skilled athletes. Gait & posture, 41(1), 33-38. 

Jones, P. A., Herrington, L., & Graham-Smith, P. (2016). Braking characteristics during cutting and pivoting in female soccer players. Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology, 30, 46-54. 

Jones, P. A., Thomas, C., Dos’Santos, T., McMahon, J., & Graham-Smith, P. (2017). The Role of Eccentric Strength in 180° Turns in Female Soccer Players. Sports, 5(2), 42. http://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/5/2/42 

Kai, T., Hirai, S., Anbe, Y., & Takai, Y. (2021). A new approach to quantify angles and time of changes-of-direction during soccer matches. PloS one, 16(5), e0251292. 

Lee, M. J. C., Lloyd, D. G., Lay, B. S., Bourke, P. D., & Alderson, J. A. (2017). Different visual stimuli affect body reorientation strategies during sidestepping. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27(5), 492-500. 

McBurnie, A., & Dos’ Santos, T. (2022). Multi-Directional Speed in Youth Soccer Players: Theoretical Underpinnings. Strength & Conditioning Journal, 44(1), 15-33. 

McBurnie, A., Dos’ Santos, T., & Jones, P. A. (2021). Biomechanical Associates of Performance and Knee Joint Loads During an 70-90° Cutting Maneuver in Sub-Elite Soccer Players. Journal of strength and conditioning research, 35(11), 3190-3198. 

McBurnie, A., Harper, D. J., Jones, P. A., & Dos’Santos, T. (2021). Deceleration Training in Team Sports: Another Potential ‘Vaccine’for Sports-Related Injury? Sports medicine, 1-12. 

Morgan, O. J., Drust, B., Ade, J. D., & Robinson, M. A. (2021). Change of Direction Frequency Off the Ball: New Perspectives in Elite Youth Soccer. Science and Medicine in Football, null-null. https://doi.org/10.1080/24733938.2021.1986635 

Morgan, O. J., Drust, B., Ade, J. D., & Robinson, M. A. (2025). Change of Direction Density: A Novel Consideration of Consecutive Changes of Direction in Elite Youth Soccer. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 39(8), e1010-e1016.

Mornieux, G., Gehring, D., Fürst, P., & Gollhofer, A. (2014). Anticipatory postural adjustments during cutting manoeuvres in football and their consequences for knee injury risk. Journal of sports sciences, 32(13), 1255-1262. 

Plisk, S. S. (2000). Speed, agility, and speed-endurance development. Essentials of strength training and conditioning, 471-491. 

Rayner, R. (2020). TRAINING AND TESTING OF 1V1 AGILITY IN AUSTRALIAN FOOTBALL Federaration University Australia ]. Victoria, Australia 

Rovan, K., Kugovnik, O., Holmberg, L. J., & Supej, M. (2014). The steps needed to perform acceleration and turning at different approach speeds. Kinesiologia Slovenica, 20(1), 38-50. 

Schreurs, M. J., Benjaminse, A., & Lemmink, K. A. (2017). Sharper angle, higher risk? The effect of cutting angle on knee mechanics in invasion sport athletes. Journal of biomechanics, 63, 144-150. 

Slaughter, P. R., & Adamczyk, P. G. (2020). Tracking Quantitative Characteristics of Cutting Maneuvers with Wearable Movement Sensors during Competitive Women’s Ultimate Frisbee Games. Sensors, 20(22), 6508. 

Vanrenterghem, J., Venables, E., Pataky, T., & Robinson, M. A. (2012). The effect of running speed on knee mechanical loading in females during side cutting. Journal of biomechanics, 45(14), 2444-2449. 

Wheeler, K. W., Askew, C. D., & Sayers, M. G. (2010). Effective attacking strategies in rugby union. European Journal of Sport Science, 10(4), 237-242. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2010.482595 

Wheeler, K. W., & Sayers, M. G. L. (2010). Modification of agility running technique in reaction to a defender in rugby union. Journal of sports science & medicine, 9(3), 445-451. 

Wyatt, H., Weir, G., van Emmerik, R., Jewell, C., & Hamill, J. (2019). Whole-body control of anticipated and unanticipated sidestep manoeuvres in female and male team sport athletes. Journal of sports sciences, 37(19), 2269-2269. 

Young, W. B., Dawson, B., & Henry, G. J. (2015). Agility and change-of-direction speed are independent skills: Implications for training for agility in invasion sports. International Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 10(1), 159-169. 

Young, W. B., James, R., & Montgomery, I. (2002). Is muscle power related to running speed with changes of direction? Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 42(3), 282-288.